Compensation for work-related death must include interest from the date of the accident, as the employer's liability arises immediately upon the occurrence of the accident.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. D. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel fon behalf of respondent No.1 as well as Sri. Onkar Pandey for respondent No.2.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.9.2011 whereby Commissioner, Workman's Compensation has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,62,685/- as compensation with regard to death of late Surendra Kumar, who was son of the petitioner.

3. The facts in brief are that the deceased Surendra Kumar was working as Computer Operator in the office of opposite party No.2 i.e. Sunny Gas Service Katehry Bazar, Post Katehry, District Ambedkar Nagar on 4.7.2008 where the petitioner had worked during the day time and had gone to home after working hours. To consider that the work was still remaining he was called back to the office where he worked till late night in the office of respondent No.2. In the morning two persons were found in the premises of respondent No.2 agency who had been poisoned and they were immediately taken to the hospital. The other person was Krishna Lal who was brother of the owner of the agency i.e. Bharat Lal. The son of the petitioner Surendra Kumar died on reaching the hospital but Krishna Lal survived. With regard to the said incident first information report was lodged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

4. As no compensation was given by the agency for the death of Surendra Kumar the petitioners filed claim under Section 10 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 which was registered and notices were issued to respondent No.2. On receipt of the said notice the respondents immediately deposited an amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- before the Commissioner where it came on record that the age of Surendra Kumar was 25 years at the time of the said incident and he was receiving salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It also came on record that there was inimical relationship between Krishna Lal and one Rama Shankar because Krishna Lal allegedly had illicit relationship with his wife and he wanted to kill Krishna Lal. It is stated that on account of the said fact he had administered poison in the food which was consumed by Surendra Kumar and Krishna Lal. Unfortunately Krishna Lal survived but son of the petitioners succumbed to the poison.

5. The compensation Commissioner has dealt with all these arguments and returned a finding that the gas agency is liable to pay compensation under the Act of 1923 and accordingly as per the provisions contained in Schedule 4 considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years he applied the factor of 216.91 and multiplied the same with three months' salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and granted compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,62,685/- by means of order dated 15.9.2011. In the said order no penalty was imposed upon the respondents considering the fact that immediately after filing of the said claim they had deposited Rs. 1,63,000/- before the Commissioner and accordingly he was of the view that there was no delay in depositing the said amount.

6. Petitioner has lastly submitted that date of accident was 04.05.2008, on which date the petitioner had succumbed to food poisoning during course of his employment and the compensation was deposited during proceedings by the employer on 29.12.2009. It is submitted that amount of compensation was due to the petitioner on the date of accident and the employer should have been liable to pay the interest from 04.05.2008 itself, while, no interest in the present case has been granted to the petitioner by the Compensation Commissioner considering the fact that at the time of filing of the claim the employer has deposited the compensation before the authority itself.

7. The petitioner had preferred a review stating that there was, in fact, delay in depositing the said amount and consequently the said revision was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to pay further pay Rs. 10,000/- towards penalty.

8. Learned counsel